Even more relevant than 'knowing' the origin of life is to know it is possible. That there is a formula that unlocks the potential in matter to become alive and self-aware, something we know for sure.
What do you believe is the origin of "Life"?? Watch
Last edited by zhog; 16-10-2016 at 21:43.
- 16-10-2016 21:42
- 19-10-2016 17:54
life is the idea you have in your head. The origin is the idea of time. There is no way to prove either exist.
- 19-10-2016 18:03
I like keeping an open mind to this question, I think it's one of those questions you should never convince yourself of an answer being 100% accurate because during different periods of your life if you allow yourself to be open minded you'll have a different view, whereas if you tell yourself "it happened like this, this is what I believe." you'll never get to think about it properly, the self convincing can cost you to miss out on something that can develop you as person and your way of life. Instead of living to answer and build on the question, you live to fulfill and in accordence tothe self-convinced answer.Last edited by Zxyn; 19-10-2016 at 18:06.
(Original post by mkap)
- 29-11-2016 11:10
Adam and Eve was the beginning of life imo.
I do believe in evolution but not that we came from apes and stuff. i believe that evolution takes place in cases such as humans becoming shorter over thousands of years.
one thing i dont understand is that if we did come from apes then why are we the only evolved species?
'Why are we the only evolved species' is a nonsense statement, 'evolved' doesn't mean possessing language and building nuclear warheads. It means the shift in the frequency of genes in a gene pool, so every living thing is evolved. Why there aren't others is due to
a. we killed alternative evolutionary routes off (aren't we charming)
b. the sort of 'evolved' intellectual capacities of humans is both a rare and difficult evolutionary 'goal' and because our intelligence just happens to be one of various adaptive traits that has been useful to us, just as wings are useful to a bird (and evolved) and antlers are useful to reindeer (and evolved)
Dont critique something you don't understand
- 29-11-2016 15:23
It's surprisingly not so easy to have a clear definition of what life is.
Posted from TSR Mobile
- 01-12-2016 22:15
As for the origin of Life itself, it's a bugger. Regarding amino-acids as the 'building blocks', they go on to form proteins. Proteins are useless without an ability to replicate and DNA is essential for it, we don't know which came first or how they happened to become acquainted. Also, a protein needs to fold itself into shape once the sequence has been achieved and other technicalities of the sort. We know they happen but not why.
There are other scientific hurdles, monomers and polymers performing apparently anti-natural acts (water does to them something completely different to what they do when engaged in creating life and none of it is waterproof), the very specific list of requirements for a living cell, perhaps the most famous image of what life's forming comes to is that of Hoyle: a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and leaving a Jumbo Jet in place. There is a statistical methodology to back up the unlikeliness of such thing, as much as with the instant creation of our own proteins.
Dawkins view and probably fair to say scientific consensus: that of course such thing couldn't happen in one go, it is obviously a progression. The same statistical improbability is to be found in the highly complex chains of amino-acids in our proteins, they couldn't have possibly formed instantly so... they must have formed progressively. That is also the reasoning behind the refutation of Behe's 'irreducible complexity', that there is no such thing because you can never make it irreducible. The parts formed themselves step by step and happened to bump into each other for good effect.
Hoyle's allegorical representation of the statistical improbability of the 'right' parts ever coming together to such effect sounds very apt, apart from the fact that we know what the conditions in a junkyard but not those under which life presumably 'happened' (and that a jet is not living). However, that means the Jumbo parts would have done just that, that the engine, the wings, the seats, everything would have just assembled itself in that fashion to form the whole. Progressively, of course.
What we seem to know is that life has been around for nearly 4 billion years and that suggests the conditions on this rock at the time were fairly typical of the forming process in a planet, so it is quite likely it has emerged elsewhere too in similar environments. That it went on to become us may be specific to our very own conditions, the statistical probabilities of finding another planet we could just move to are none really. If it has managed to evolve into anything intelligent anywhere else they will forcefully require a thumb to make things, even if they have acid for blood.Last edited by zhog; 01-12-2016 at 22:27.
- 01-12-2016 22:21
I think Barney the Dinosaur created life. Go ahead, judge me.
For the people who don't know him, its this guy.